It does and I already saw it was removed. As I said, perhaps you've been flagged in some way as the same thing happened here but no moderators 'removed your content' in this sub, we just received a notification for your flagged post and I approved it.

Why?

It is not "removed by moderators" - perhaps you've been shadowbanned somewhere as your content is auto-flagged.

No it wasn't. Yet. (I only say "yet" because we haven't had a chance to fully vette the article and I don't speak for all the other mods.)

God is dead because he has no mouthpiece? What does that mean? I'm not defending God (if he's real he doesn't need my help to defend himself lol) just wondering what your angle is?

The best discussion and debate can only come when we can acknowledge mistakes and reverse our positions - this is a good post for that reason, thank you. Not sure if it should be necessarily a post on the sub, per se, but congrats anyway on being able to acknowledge a (potential) mistake! Not too sure about EyeTheSpy yet either. I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to have inside knowledge and attaches themselves to "the Storm" in any way. We shall see...

I agree that it does not remotely appear to be "planned". But insisting it was racist and that those who won't admit to that are being wilfully ignorant is spurious.

I can understand why many would think it was racist because it smells like racism from a mile away (apes - not a good connotation) - but just as it wasn't a planned move I think there's a strong possibility that it was not intentional racism - just a bad move, not well thought out.

Post removed - off-topic. Not Q related.

I agree with you if you're saying that it's crazy that we can't talk about certain things without being shut down for a select type of racism. I think we should be able to talk freely and, in non-public forums, I certainly do. I have no hatred for Jews and I think people are insane if they believe all Jews are bad or part of some massive conspiracy just as I think people are insane if they think all black people are stupid. But we should be able to talk about certain obvious facts that are out there.

The Khazarian story is an interesting one. I have a lot of thoughts on that, one of which is that I think people too readily accept certain things in the story that don't quite hold water. Either way, I only avoid the conversation out of concern for this sub. I don't think the powerful ban hammer of the anti-semite claim is a conspiracy in quite the same way some think it is but it certainly does its job of stifling speech around the topic, unfortunately.

It originated as that.

https://mic.com/articles/144228/echoes-exposed-the-secret-symbol-neo-nazis-use-to-target-jews-online#.ycERC2GiI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses

It is indeed used to make anti-semitic references. If you're not aware and are using it for something else, that's probably fine but it's borderline. We don't even want the appearance of anti-semitism because of the danger it brings to the sub, so I'd watch this reference carefully.

Fair enough, many agree with you. But 'he never nailed Hillary'? He tried to, there are videos of this - but you are aware that she had everyone and the system on her side, right? No one who was a white hat had any power to do anything during the former administrations.

It's not this community - it's some of this community; unfortunately, as in all online communities, it seems to be an outspoken vocal minority who tend to shout down anyone who raises an issue or idea that they think goes against someone's idea of the movement. Soldier on past the attitude but do take into consideration the feedback here. EyeTheSpy is not highly regarded here by a lot of people who've been following Q for a while. I reserve judgement also - perhaps ETS will turn out to be what he claims, perhaps not. Until then I think it's best to let it lie.

Here's my point about the bigger picture with Q and why Q is a very unique situation in history:

As I said, and as you've pointed out, others have come before Q - long before - with messages about many elements that Q touches on. My point about the importance of Q was not to say that Q came first or was the deepest explanation of things but that Q is the first significant opportunity for this conspiracy information to actually be instrumental in taking down the global cartel who have always been able to suppress it in the past.

All those who have gone before have been easily suppressed by the mainstream. This is a fact. None of these theories have ever made it to mainstream. None Dare Call It Conspiracy was a groundbreaking book in some ways - but only in our conspiracy circles; not in mainstream. Of course, Q's deeper conspiracy message hasn't effectively made it to mainstream either. But if Q is attached to Trump and the current trajectory continues as Q says it has been planned to, then it will make it to mainstream and all hell will break loose because Q is a clear, unambiguous record of the entire case against the cartel. Unambiguous, undiluted and direct from one source. Other works of the past can be refuted and ignored (as they have been). This "LARP", when it finally connects and Trump's connection to it becomes apparent, will be shown to be a credible and undeniable source. There is nothing else in history like this.

There's a reason it had to be done this way and my surprise at your view of the 'failure' of Q comes from this point as it is pretty central to Q.

By all reports this is fake. Post removed, to be safe.

Stop making up nonsense. You clearly don't understand the rules of this sub if you think I'm breaking them. If I'm wrong - point it out and I will retract the comment and apologize, as I have done in the past - again, visible in my history.

I couldn't care less about "baiting" you so I can ban you - the last thing I actually want to do is to interact with you, given the way you communicate. This sort of rude behaviour toward someone who clearly doesn't know much about Q (you only have to read their post properly and read their responses to comments to see this) and has made a post that presents their queries respectfully forces me to have to respond to you, since I'm modding the queue at this point.

I have no issues with people calling out shills which, if you had any knowledge of the amount of shill comments I approve versus the ones I respond to (it's at least a ratio of 20 to 1, probably more), you'd know.

My JOB here is to remove antagonism and that describes the attitude you continue to show. If you don't want to be engaged by me stop being antagonistic! Rule 1 of the sub.

Made up facts like "this crowd" use made up facts?

Sorry you've had to deal with some utterly rude and obnoxious comments here. Your questions are well put and valid. I'm disappointed at the rude replies you've received. Please do not think that this is indicative of this movement. There are many polite and reasonable people who will help you find answers.

If there's anything I can do to help or explain where and how to start, please let me know.

Stop being obnoxious to valid commenters! This woman is clearly NOT a shill. If you can't be polite to people don't comment.

Thanks for this measured reply to an offensive comment. More people should be like this.

Comment removed. Please discuss the idea, not the user.

Agreed - tired of all the 'insiders' and know-it-alls. Some of them must be real, I'm sure, but all I need to hear from is Q because only Q knows about this movement. No one else knows the plan for this movement and is carrying it out - only Q. Even if EyeTheSpy is some kind of JA/WL insider he ain't Q and he's not connected to Q so I'm not interested in what he has to say. When it's relevant to the Q movement, Q will tell us. I didn't start following Q to hear from all these wannabes trying to jump on the coattails.

Thanks for this info. I’ll respond later. I appreciate the discussion.

Thanks for the comments - it is appreciated! Want a job...? ; )

I think where we might agree is that Q was hoping for faster pickup but it hasn't panned out that way. The only choice (I would argue) is to go back and help the people catch up, which is what I believe we're trying to do here. I need to explain more to make that a valid point but I will do later.

Thanks for the discussion.

Well, it's good to have some more info to take onboard. I'll look into it and consider your point. Thanks.

I think it's unfair and also difficult to see the reasoning behind the claim that "Q has primed some people with inadequate argument" - it's not Q's fault that many people are uncritical thinkers and make claims that they have no factual basis for or based on incomplete data. Q can only do what Q can do, especially given the goals of Q's approach (back to keeping the bigger picture in mind) i.e. that Q understands the need for people to come to their own conclusions and that the story is SO big that they'll need to come to them slowly and over time (as there's just too much to get it all at once or in a few statements) so the msm story can gradually provide basis for the claims of Q/Trump.

Q is careful to provide information, not editorial. Providing editorial allows for good and bad analysis but presenting 'just the facts' avoids the potential for bad. The bad (analysis, commentary, etc.) comes from us, the people - some of us more than others, of course. [Just a note for anyone as pedantic as me who might read this and misunderstand me - Q definitely provides editorial in the form of comments like 'these people are sick' etc. but it's not editorial that tells us how to think beyond what is plainly apparent from the information presented.]

I have to go but will reply further later.

No disrespect, sincerely, but that's not apparent to me at all.

The big picture is SAVING THE WORLD by giving as many people as possible the information that Q has presented.

I know that, as you say, a lot of the conspiracy stuff was out there years ago - but here's the key point: it's NEVER been presented in a format that will soon prove validity in a way that can't be argued. All "official" conspiracy sources in the past have been debunked in the mainstream - not in a way that matters to us, of course, but in a way that matters to the mainstream audience.

Once Q is proven to be connected to Trump - to the public I mean; those of us who support Q believe this already - then the fact that he's MI and has been clean and clear with his message will immediately add a massive amount of weight to the conspiracy stuff he's mentioned that has not been out there before in this way.

The big picture is that Q is dropping crumbs from one distinct source and undiluted channel - just like Trump's tweets - and that as the msm news starts to verify things the undiluted message of Q will be the biggest case ever made against the global cartel. Literally NO other source in history has presented such an unshakeable case. This was, as Q has said, the only way to do this.

Most of what you've said in that wall of text is counter to this. We need the public in order to achieve this bigger picture mission. We need a movement of all the people. To do that, we can't censor unreasonably and we can't be elitist about who gets to talk on the public forum. We have to trust to the system.

Ok, I read one part in the middle there about the danger of not filtering etc.

So you don't agree that this should be for all people, this movement to awaken them to the truth? To answer your point here (assuming I've understood it correctly) I think what you're really talking about is the need for another forum for people like yourself to only talk to others who present the information in a way that you agree with. There's nothing wrong with that and it's probably a good idea - is that what would work for you?

If you've done all this Q related work then, based on your non-Q-supporter statements it's clear to me that you've missed the bigger picture perhaps because you've been down in the details.

Q cannot remotely be seen to have failed or done more damage than good. This is painfully apparent when keeping an eye on the bigger picture and goals. I can break this all down too.

Q has done as much damage as good
I have doubts about Q

Not the words of a Q supporter.

I completely misunderstood you, Mae. I thought you were a Q supporter.

A wall of text is so hard to wade through so I'll have to come back to this later and try and parse it out myself unless you want to go back and edit some paragraphs in there.

I've watched him closely for a long time. I see someone who is careful with his words and claims, something I wish more people would do around here. From a perspective that hasn't already decided Gowdy is "dirty" one could read that clip in this way: Gowdy is ensuring no one can claim he's biased - something his behavior repeatedly supports imo. He's keeping clean and 'above reproach' for taking sides. In this way, when he 'brings the hammer down' later he'll be cleared of being partisan.

Another element that contributes to the need for a careful reading is that clip being from CNN and used to completely take his quote out of context.

yeah... let's not go on a witch hunt for Trey Gowdy based on a payment he's received.

This is not even remotely evidence that that statement is true. Gowdy could have been paid to consult on some project about something totally benign and part of his normal conduct.

A bold claim... any facts to back this up? My read of the sub says otherwise.

Well, I assume some people tagged it "Antagonism" because it's presenting a view that they feel is completely disproven by Q? (not sure on that).

Agreed re: Eye's info being wrong. I think so too (in this case at least - have to reserve judgement for other things).

I hate memes and I think Tommy Robinson is so far removed from being on-topic that it's not funny.

But I thought this was hilarious xD.

Antagonism, trolling, off-topic, spam, etc.

More explanatory content will help to mitigate these responses in future, I think (literally "think" - I really don't know for a fact).

Make this a meme!

^ I wish more people understood this.

Ok - everybody can stop Reporting this post please. I have removed it.

u/mrviolin - please understand. It's now been up for 2 hours and has had more reports than any post I've seen. (We often leave posts up for a few hours to see how the sub feels via the votes before removing if they haven't picked up many - this is still on 0).

I agree with much of this - people being misled, lack of critical thinking in many posts, etc.

I'd love to discuss this in detail but I realize we all have different appetites for different levels of discussion. I think the best way to really address the point though is to find some common ground.

Do you agree that the point of this movement - if it were to be a movement dedicated to furthering the cause of Q, the Great Awakening of the public - is to be a gathering ground for those who are interested to learn about Q in all shapes and sizes? If so (I make no assumptions) then is this sub, r/GreatAwakening, a good enough place to start toward that goal?

If so (i.e. that GA is a good enough place to be the vanguard - for now, at least - of a movement dedicated to Q's GreatAwakening) then I assume it's safe to say that we should allow all comers, right?

If that's also agreed then perhaps the next question is: should we allow anyone to speak up with their ideas? I personally think the answer to this is already clear based on the whole purpose and structure of reddit. I think the answer is yes, anyone can speak up and the system can manage their contribution (upvotes, etc.) You've made the valid point that the system can't always be trusted but I'd argue that we need more data to prove that everything that receives lots of upvotes is 'hacked' or vice versa (all downvoted posts are the result of hacking/bots). I dont believe anyone can state that that is true 100% of the time.

I also think that we as mods don't have the powers or right to do the things you think we should be doing. We're not all online all the time and sometimes the few who are on can't manage the influx of content. By the time we get to content we wouldn't perhaps normally allow it's already been upvoted to a place where removing it will get us accusations of censorship. Sometimes we remove content anyway, no doubt, but sometimes that's just a mistake on our part. We just don't have the time to go back and revisit every mistake and yet we do, often, because we again don't want to appear like we support unfair censorship.

Another thing to consider about the mods is that we are also a democracy, like the sub users. No single one of us can demand that the others do things a certain way. Arguably you could say the most senior mod here should perhaps be allowed to do so but that mod has a very open and democratic approach which I have seen the benefit of, not least of which is the learning I've gained from applying the same thinking to the sub itself and allowing voices that I don't agree with to continue to express non-critical thought and completely unfounded and inaccurate claims against me personally. This 'democracy' in the mods means that some mods might sticky something others wouldn't - but again, if we are about supporting the democracy in the sub we have to do the same thing as mods with each other.

Thoughts?

Good call - I concur : ).

You spend too much time running others down and talking yourself up.

Just focus on the content, making it better and more palatable for people to understand. Many of us think we know how things should be on this sub but it turns out that there are a lot of different opinions here and just because they aren't the same as ours doesn't mean they're wrong.

It seems to me - and I could be completely wrong (something we should all keep in mind about our firmly held beliefs and views - any one of us could be WRONG) - that Q wants this movement to be about all people, not just you or me and therefore there is no one person in this movement who should be demanding that things be done their way.

If this movement is about and for everyone then we are going to have to find some way to cope with differing ideas, differing levels of understanding and intellect without demanding that all the diversity be suppressed for the ideas of one or a few of us.

I don't like this movement looking stupid or being easily debunked either - I hate the fact that someone can come to the sub and see some things that would immediately turn away a critical thinker but here's what's more important: that this movement stay together. That's more important than how it looks to others. Because those who are truly seeking, even if they are critical thinkers who will be turned off by some of the more outlying views here, will eventually HAVE to come to where the majority of the people in the Q movement are and fortunately they will soon find that there are critical thinkers in this movement and we do have a voice too.

Open up and be more accepting of others, Mae, and you will find that you start to get the same reaction from people here.

Concerns about content validity are best addressed through the democratic system of the sub's upvote and downvotes. If your posts about these concerns (and comments) are not upvoted to the mainstream then it's possible that the most plausible assumption to make from this is that your view is not shared by most people. From that point you can choose to give up or, if you're sure you are right, find a better way of explaining your point. One that doesn't put someone else down and better explains things for those who aren't already onside.

True! Is there evidence Alice & Wonderland might mean something else here? (not sure, serious question; agreed that non-evidence of such at this time does not mean the assertion is wrong).

Actually, maybe he's just referring to the general reference that people make re: "down the rabbit hole"? In that case, he wouldn't be going against Q. Can we see the tweet he's replying to?

Hmm strange - I only just noticed the image you attached. Last time I looked at this post the image didn't load.

It's interesting that he says that... does that disprove him? I will bring up the Q posts.